Why It’s Impossible to Indict a Cop

[loyalsister]

Chapter 563 of the Missouri Revised Statutes grants a lot of discretion to officers of the law to wield deadly force, to the horror of many observers swooping in to the Ferguson story. The statute authorizes deadly force “in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody” if the officer “reasonably believes” it is necessary in order to “to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested has committed or attempted to commit a felony…or may otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.”

Much more

http://www.thenation.com/article/190937/why-its-impossible-indict-cop#

They didn't even mentions Missouri's self defense laws....

People in Missouri can repel intruders on the theory that anyone breaking into an occupied home has evil intentions toward the residents, said Kevin Jamison, a lawyer from Gladstone, Mo., who lobbied for Missouri's castle doctrine bill as a member of the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance. The law now covers you even if you fend off a carjacker or confront an intruder in your tent in the woods.

----------
It's not clear how many times the castle doctrine has been used as a defense in Missouri. The real effect, Swingle said, is likely in cases never filed by prosecutors.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/missouri-authorities-navigate-castle-doctrine/article_aa8bd816-50e5-552c-b8dd-2f6fdb79f8c6.html

[lovemydog]

1. This Missouri law should be struck down, in my opinion.

Deadly force in effecting an arrest - that's inhumane and absurd.

It's amazing what an authority-worshipping, obedient group of legislators who wrote that law and supported it, will tolerate.

That law should be challenged, and then struck down as unconstitutional.

Thanks for sharing this loyalsister.

[merrily]

3. Could just be repealed or amended.

[lovemydog]

5. It could be - but I don't think the Missouri legislature will do that.

[merrily]

6. Demonstrators should demand it, anyway. Sunlight.

No guaranty the Missouri Supreme Court or the US Supreme Court will strike it down, either.

[lovemydog]

9. True. And good point.

[merrily]

10. Thank you!

[loyalsister]

7. Not by this blood-thirsty General Assembly

If anything they would want to make it easier for the Darren Wilson's of the world to do what they will without question. In fact, I expect to see a fresh batch of bills designed to protect the civilians from the tarnished masses in January.

[branford]

8. What's the basis for the purported unconstitutionality of the statutes?

The arrest statute represents the prevailing rules throughout the country and is basically a codification of common law, as are most self-defense type statutes. Any "tinkering" by the states is usually only at the very edges, such rules have been around for a very long time, and the vast majority of the public do not apparently object.

Great discretion is provided police officers in order to both protect them and the public. Officers and the public at large will always be given great priority over someone "reasonably believed" to have committed or is attempting to commit a felony. There is also a great body of law on what constitutes "reasonable," again, just like standard self-defense laws.

In any event, and regardless of the above, police officers are not commonly indicted for Michael Brown-type situations because people overall have faith and respect in most officers, regardless of whether it is truly warranted. The arrest statutes are not the reason why officers are not indicted, rather the arrest statutes are popular because the majority of people are freely willing to provide the police with such broad discretion.

The law is really not the primary issue, it's public attitudes and beliefs. Any change requires a far more fundamental shift in public thinking.

[lovemydog]

11. From what I've read, the Missouri law allows a police officer to use deadly force

in making an arrest. That's way more discretion for a police officer than should be allowed under either state or federal law.

If that's what the Missouri law says, then I believe criminal and constitutional lawyers in Missouri can and should challenge the law.

I agree with you that changes require fundamental shifts in public thinking. There are a number of ways to shift public thinking, and personally I don't want to rule any of them out. One of the best ways to shift public thinking is to strike down shitty laws.

[merrily]

2. All that--plus, prosecutors rarely seem to want them indicted and they run

grand juries.

[lovemydog]

4. That's a really good point. Prosecutors are usually on the side of police.

[branford]

12. Back to my original point above.

District attorneys are elected. They favor police officers for two primary reasons: (1) their electorate favors those officers, and (2) they need to work the officers on a daily basis. As regards to (2), special prosecutors and federal actions only fare slightly better against officers because of (1).

For instance, the DOJ and FBI do not work hand-in-hand with the Ferguson P.D. or the local D.A., yet we now hear little about any potential federal civil rights prosecution, and if leaks are to be believed, one will not be coming.

Prosecutors purportedly favoring the police is a symptom of a problem, not anything close to its cause.

[lovemydog]

14. Yes, those are lawyerly points.

What do you propose to improve the situation? I mean, apart from 'all of society must change'?

[Oktober]

13. Which part do you find unreasonable...

It's not just to effect the arrest but also the potential for violence...

[loyalsister]

16. This

The statute authorizes deadly force “in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody” if the officer “reasonably believes” it is necessary in order to

“to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested has committed
or attempted to commit a felony…
or may otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.”

A person may be shot if the cop "reasonably believes" the person is a suspect.

African Americans are more likely to be arrested than their counterparts.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/18/ferguson-black-arrest-rates/19043207/?AID=10709313&PID=6157437&SID=1iuwq0e3zauoh

I feel certain that THIS is a huge contributor to that fact.

the most revealing moment in the story comes when Zoller Seitz — who admits he escalated a confrontation with the stranger, a Hispanic man loitering outside a deli — talks to the cops who arrived on the scene. After telling the two white officers that he had confronted the guy and punched him in the face after the stranger jabbed him in the chest with his fingers, the cops asked Zoller Seitz if he wanted to press charges for assault:

“I don’t think he actually meant to touch me, though,” I said, while a voice deep inside me said, Stupid white boy, he’s making it plain and you’re not getting it.

“It doesn’t matter if he meant to touch you, he hit you first,” he said. He was talking to me warmly and patiently, as you might explain things to a child. Wisdom was being imparted.

“You were in fear of your life,” he added.

http://www.salon.com/2014/08/21/the_ultimate_white_privilege_darren_wilson_and_being_afraid_for_your_life/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

It is a standard construct in this country that it is so natural for someone to be afraid of a person of color that it goes without saying that injuring or killing them is an understandable response.

An officer in Missouri might believe someone has committed or will commit a crime because of the "DEMONIC" image presented. The space between belief and reasonable belief barely exists, making it very easy for an officer to simply describe a fear rooted in racial bias and have it be accepted as a justification.

In our criminal justice system, white people are not above visual judgements that could result in injustices. No one should be subject to lethal force based on suspicion.
The fact that there is a pervasive institutional bias that has led to massive incarcerations. It starts with suspicion. That law codifies and therefore readily justifies lethal action based on fear. It's notable that if an officer's suspicions are not considered applicable, the self defense law can be applied.

I don't want to see this equalized by creating some kind of system that puts a quota on arrests of white people just to catch up. I want justice to be administered more fairly.

[exboyfil]

15. You also have these cases

White officer shots white woman
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/09/samantha-ramsey_n_6123820.html

Or this case where white officer shot white teenager in his home
http://www.11alive.com/story/news/local/2014/07/16/euharlee-police-shooting-beth-gatny/12753503/

Or this case when a black officer shot a white man
http://www.texasobserver.org/james-whitehead-robert-arnold-shades-gray-orange/